Canadian Politics for a change

Hey Feanor, Kex and anyone else who cares to comment...

What do you think of this Coalition deal that the Liberals and NDP are talking about?

Outside of the details of what each party may or may not do to this country, the whole thing just seems to go against the spirit of Democracy IMO. If the opposition doesn't like what the current gov't is doing they should officially join together like the Reform and Conservatives did in 2003. Then force a new election through a non-confidence vote and let the Canadian public decide who should lead the country. Fewer Parties means less chance of another minority Gov't at the next election. This fudgery of holding hands to overthrow the current government and then promising to get along for the next three years is foolishness and an insult to our rights and freedoms.

Disagree

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...
Outside of the details of what each party may or may not do to this country, the whole thing just seems to go against the spirit of Democracy IMO. If the opposition doesn't like what the current gov't is doing they should officially join together like the Reform and Conservatives did in 2003. Then force a new election through a non-confidence vote. This fudgery of holding hands to overthrow the current government and then promising to get along for the next three years is foolishness and an insult to our rights and freedoms.

In many countries coalition governments are the norm not the exception, and it isn't in the lease against the spirit of democracy. It would be completely normal that the head of state ask a coalition of parties to govern if the plurality party is defeat on a major bill or vote of no confidence, especially very soon after an election.

Let's face it, Harper in the last Parliament and now in this one, has attempted to govern as if he had a majority, that is, without any attempt at all to compromise with other parties. With a resounding <38% of the popular vote Harper has anything but a clear mandate to do whatever he likes. I for one don't want another election: a perfectly acceptable alternative under the constitution is to permit a coalition with a reasonable chance of success to form a government.

If there's a problem, it isn't constitutional or a matter of democracy. It's the practical matter that the Liberals and NDP don't have as many seats as the Conservatives, (though they got a combined >44% of popular vote). So they would be reliant on Bloc Quebecois support which is no different than the Conservatives -- and given the arrogant attitude of Harper, I think they'd be at as likely to get it as the Conservatives. So I say bring on the coalition.

What do you think of this Coalition deal that the Liberals and NDP are talking about?

Outside of the details of what each party may or may not do to this country, the whole thing just seems to go against the spirit of Democracy IMO. If the opposition doesn't like what the current gov't is doing they should officially join together like the Reform and Conservatives did in 2003. Then force a new election through a non-confidence vote and let the Canadian public decide who should lead the country. Fewer Parties means less chance of another minority Gov't at the next election. This fudgery of holding hands to overthrow the current government and then promising to get along for the next three years is foolishness and an insult to our rights and freedoms.

Well, I'm afraid I disagree with you here. In the last election, almost 70% of Canadians rejected Harper's agenda in favor of parties that stand on the left side of the political spectrum to varying degrees. If those parties feel they can find some common ground and cooperate in a coalition that represents the interest of the majority of Canadians than so be it. After all, a political party is just a collection of people with similar ideas...a coalition isn't much different really.

By contrast, if if anything is against the spirit of Democracy, it would be a government that feels it has any authority to govern when it only obtained something like 38% of the 60% that did vote. That's what? 24% of the country? I find this whole minority government thing interesting, but when a leader tries to rule like he has a majority with such weak support from the electorate, it screams arrogance to me. I was optimistic that a new era of cooperation was about to begin, given the crisis, and the underwhelming mandate Canadians gave the Conservatives. Instead, they present several very provocative proposals in their fiscal update that really backed the opposition parties against the wall. That was bullying, not cooperation. Mr. Harper tried ruling as if he had a majority, and ignored the voices of the majority Canadians in the process.

While I don't think the Conservatives were doing a terrible job since the were held in check, I do think the Conservatives have made a serious blunder here.

My own take is that some sort of compromise is forthcoming, and this will blow over.

Feanor, many countries have dictators too. That doesn't make it right.

Yes, Harper is arrogant. I don't dispute that. And the Liberals owe the Canadian people over $100 million in misappropriated funds. I'll take arrogance, thanks.

Since the 2000 election the Liberals have consistently lost seats in parliament. They won 172 seats in 2008, 135 in 2004, 103 in 2006 and only 76 seats in 2008. Even if the NDP and Liberals merged (not such a far-fetched idea), they still would still have less seats than the Conservatives. And yet, AND YET, the head of the Liberal party may be our next (unelected) Prime Minister. I'm sorry, but I have an issue with that. Look at the numbers in the last 4 elections. Canadians have spoken and it appears to be meaningless.

I've made no secret of my largely Conservative views but, honestly, I would have a problem with this coalition regardless of in which order the Parties fell. My issues here are philosophical. I don't see this as anything other than a coup.

What's true

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...

Since the 2000 election the Liberals have consistently lost seats in parliament. They won 172 seats in 2008, 135 in 2004, 103 in 2006 and only 76 seats in 2008. Even if the NDP and Liberals merged (not such a far-fetched idea), they still would still have less seats than the Conservatives. And yet, AND YET, the head of the Liberal party may be our next (unelected) Prime Minister. I'm sorry, but I have an issue with that. Look at the numbers in the last 4 elections. Canadians have spoken and it appears to be meaningless.

...

As principal oppositon party, the Liberal Party's performance in the last Parliament was dismal, I'd agree. Their long refusal to defeat the Conservative goverment was self-serving in that they presumed an early election would result in a Conservative majority, (as did the Conservatives). Stéphane Dion was pretty much a flop as Liberal and opposition leader.

Despite the poor Liberal opposition performace, the Harper Conservatives still couldn't gleen a majority and got only 38% of popular vote. It's far-fetched to insist that we have to live with their do-nothing-but-harm right-wing policies because they somehow represent the will of the people. I don't think the opposition parties are going to play the Conservatives arrogant game again this time; if the government is defeated, there will either be another election or there will be a coalition of formerly opposition parties.

Besides a complete non-reaction to the economic crisis, the Conservatives budget update included slashing public funding for political parties -- this would have disadvantaged all the political parties except the Conservatives. Adding this insult to the general injury might well have been Harper's ploy to precipitate an election which in his hubris he probably thinks he would win. Could it be the Harper is genuinely shocked that opposition parties are considering a coalition????

Since the 2000 election the Liberals have consistently lost seats in parliament. They won 172 seats in 2008, 135 in 2004, 103 in 2006 and only 76 seats in 2008. Even if the NDP and Liberals merged (not such a far-fetched idea), they still would still have less seats than the Conservatives. And yet, AND YET, the head of the Liberal party may be our next (unelected) Prime Minister. I'm sorry, but I have an issue with that. Look at the numbers in the last 4 elections. Canadians have spoken and it appears to be meaningless.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.

In the last 4 elections the Liberals lost seats for sure, (and popular vote in less dramatic proportions). But that loss of support didn't exactly spill over to the Conservatives, it went to the NDP and Block too. But we don't govern based on historic voting trends, we govern based on issues of the day and vote on platforms and ideas. Bottom line, when you have a weak minority government, cooperation and concession on ideas is essential. You are the government of the people, whether they vote for you or not. You don't have the permission to ignore that. Governing against the ideas of the overwhelming majority of Canadians would seem to me to be undemocratic. This is what everyone means when they keep talking about he Conservatives governing as though they had a majority.

A few weeks ago the Prime Minister pledge a new era of cooperation and compromise, then his first action was the most antagonistic poke in the eye to the other parties in almost a century of Canadian Politics. That's pretty blatant and dishonest, so no sympathy here - he is the engineer of his own demise if that's what happens. I think they sensed a real opportunity for unchecked governing and got blindsided here.

I would be more ticked off at the guy I voted for for allowing this to happen by trying to play hardball politics during an economic crisis, rather than blaming the opposition doing its job.

And yeah, Stephane Dion is going to be one lame ass PM if that comes to pass.

One last comment, why haven't the Conservatives tried reaching out to one of the opposition parties to negotiate the necessary concessions needed to win their support and keep the Conservatives in power? Is that not what a minority government should be doing?
If the answer is simply that the 3 opposition parties can find no common ground with them, but can find common ground among themselves, then that suggests to me they represent the interests of the majority of Canadians and have the democratic authority to govern as long as that alliance persists.

Kex, I agree with your points. Harper is not governing as he should be to keep the country sound. I've never liked Harper. Ask my husband and my family, they'll tell you that's true. When the Alliance and Conservatives joined forces and Harper became leader of the party, I voted Liberal in the next election. But, frankly, I don't have any faith in the Liberal/NDP Alliance either.

My problem with this whole situation, however, is not based on party lines. I'm having difficulty with being told who my PM will be and not having the opportunity to vote. As I said in my first post, if the Liberals, NDP and BQ want to allign, then let them allign and let the voters choose. This whole toppling the government coalition just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth and I fear that this could set a precedence for future minority gov'ts.

My problem with this whole situation, however, is not based on party lines. I'm having difficulty with being told who my PM will be and not having the opportunity to vote. As I said in my first post, if the Liberals, NDP and BQ want to allign, then let them allign and let the voters choose. This whole toppling the government coalition just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth and I fear that this could set a precedence for future minority gov'ts.

Heads they win, Tails we lose. Either way.

My familiarity with Canadian Parliamentary rules is probably less than yours and Feanor's, but I don't believe we ever elect a Prime Minister. We just get stuck with whoever is in charge of the party with the plurality of seats.

Objectively, I think if the parties have a common-ground coalition, and have lost confidence in the Conservatives, then this is a very good decision. It saves the taxpayers half a billion dollars or so from yet another election (that likely wouldn't produce substantially different results), and answers the issue minority government implementing policies contrary to the vast majority of citizens.

Politically, I think this will bite the Liberals in the ass. The only winners here are the NDP and Bloc IMO, who for the first time I'm aware of, become relevant in policy making as government.

I know they couldn't allow the fiscal update and weak budget plans to go on, and their hands were tied by not forcing another election, but the common folk are just likely to see this as a power grab, more than a stand on merit.

The NDP win because they get a bit more publicity, but they're at risk of being swallowed by the Liberals as the PC's were.

Worse, any coalition of government dependent completely on the Bloc validates that party's existance. I feel the long-term repercussions of that have not been well considered. Candidates will no longer be able to say that voting Bloc means you're voice will never be heard in Government. To me, this is exactly what they want.

I suppose Dion will only be around for a few months.

Still, we get the government we deserve - Canadians knew, or ought to have known, the consequences and possibilities of electing a minority government. We accepted this possibility and now we may see it become a reality.

Exactly

Originally Posted by kexodusc

My familiarity with Canadian Parliamentary rules is probably less than yours and Feanor's, but I don't believe we ever elect a Prime Minister. We just get stuck with whoever is in charge of the party with the plurality of seats.

....

Consitutionaly all we vote for is a Member of Parliament. We have the hope that we will get the leader of the party to which the MP belongs for Prime Minister but we might not. The party leader can be changed by the party itself at any time; the Governor General has little practical recourse but to accept the resignation of of the former leader and appoint his/her successor as Prime Minister.

It's the duty of the GovGen to appoint as Prime Minister the person most likely to form a stable government; (I believe his person must be an MP). There is no formal rececognition of parties or party leaders per sec as I understand it given I'm no constitutional expert.

As I heard this morning there is a signed agreement amongst the opposition parties to the efffect that there will be a Liberal+NDP coalition with the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, as leader; the Bloc Quebecois has agree not to bring down the coalition for 18 months. (Kex, me must accept that the BQ party is as legitimate as any however we might disagree with its objectives.) Thus Dion would appear to be the person must likely to head a stable government in the current Pariliament. If Harper is defeated in confidence vote he is ipso facto NOT the person who can lead a stable government.

On the question of the Prime Ministership, Dion has submitted his resignation to the Liberal Party. He might be persuaded to stay on long but I suspect instead the a new leader will be found. The new leader would become Prime Minister assuming the Liberal+NDP coalition was then governing -- sorry, no popular vote for the PM.

I also hear this morning that Harper might ask the GovGen to "proroge" Parliament, that is, suspend the legislative session without ending the Pariliament and calling an election. This would dodge a non-confidence vote, leaving the current government in power. However the country needs legislation and equally important, it needs the governement kicked out if it doesn't enjoy the confidence of Parliament. Prorogation would be undemocratic, IMO.

Democracy POSTPONED

Stephen Harper ask the Governer General, Michaelle Jean, to prorogue Parliament and she has agree; (yoh! American Ms Jean is a black women head of state: just imagine!!). Neither of these things was unexpected. The expectation is the Parliament will reconvene in January. The government avoids a non-confidence vote and thereby remains in power for now.

It is extremely likely that when it does meet in January or whenever, the goverment will be defeated on its budget proposals. Then Harper will certainly ask for an election. But by then the Conservative Party will have spend millions in political advertizing to spread lies, deception, and general bullsh!t to hope to win a majority.

Was somebody saying about flouting democracy and the will of the people? The Conservatives might or might not be flouting it but they are certainly postponing it.

Coalition governments should not be allowed, as that is not what the people voted for. In the event the minority government is toppled on a non confidence vote, then you have another election. That is the downside of a minority government. Upside is you do get a blend between the elected governments platform and the opposition platforms. Unfortunately in a multi party environment this is what you get. I like the vote transfer system where the votes from other than the top two parties are transfered to the top two. There are numerous models out there that will accomplish that. Then you will always have a majority government.

1) You have a leader who preaches cooperation, only to spit in the face of his colleagues in Parliament and plunge the nation into political crisis.

2) You have a system where an unelected symbolic official is forced to make a decision that will only be seen as partisan no matter which way she goes...this potential for interference should have been removed by now.

3) Batting cleanup, you have 2 marginalized political parties fighting for their very survival, putting self-interest ahead of national interest. I can partially forgive them for this because the circumstances were belligerently forced upon them.

After a lot of thought, I think Jean got it right here. If this coalition is legitimate, and formed for the right reasons, they'll bring down the government in January anyway and prove this wasn't a spur of the moment power grab. That the coalition was formed for the right, democratic reasons.

If they don't do that, it was because of petty partisan politics, and they'll lose a lot of credibility with voters.

As for what happens next, one commentator on the radio locally had some good points in his predictions that I'll try to paraphrase below.

The BQ will pull it's support leaving the Liberal/NDP coalition stunned, confused, powerless and politically feeble adversaries in Quebec, while appearing to be the one, true anti-conservative hero to Quebec voters. And the Liberal/NDP parties will see their support across Canada weakened, and likely spilling over to the Conservatives.
From the BQ's perspective, the best conditions for a referendum on sovereignty have always been a West-centric, socially-conservative majority government in Canada. That's what polarizes Quebec nationalists.

Coalition governments should not be allowed, as that is not what the people voted for. In the event the minority government is toppled on a non confidence vote, then you have another election. That is the downside of a minority government.

I disagree with this, and the implications are dangerous. Coalitions are fine, under the right circumstances. After all, a political party is nothing more than coalition of people and groups with similar ideas and beliefs. If 2 larger groups can get together to form a stable government, so be it. The right to associate and organize is fundamental in any free society.

This should be a lesson to voters that you don't (just) vote for the party, or PM on election day.

Besides, the people voted and clearly rejected all the leaders. So no one leader has any more claim than another. But someone has to rule. Whichever group represents the majority of Canadians should be in charge...coalition or otherwise. That is expressed by confidence in parliament.

I know some argue that the voters weren't presented with a possible coalition in any of the platforms last time around, but that's no excuse. That possibility always exists. And besides, if political parties had to always do everything they said they would or would not do in an election, no government would ever last. The Conservatives would have been kicked out for any number of broken pledges as well - i.e., reneging on income trusts, political bribery, campaign funding scandals, promising not to appoint senators, etc...And the prior Liberal governments would have been turfed for broken promises on the GST, etc.

Say what?!?

Originally Posted by Gerall

Coalition governments should not be allowed, as that is not what the people voted for. In the event the minority government is toppled on a non confidence vote, then you have another election. That is the downside of a minority government. Upside is you do get a blend between the elected governments platform and the opposition platforms. Unfortunately in a multi party environment this is what you get. I like the vote transfer system where the votes from other than the top two parties are transfered to the top two. There are numerous models out there that will accomplish that. Then you will always have a majority government.

Gerall,

First, constitutionaly there doesn't necessarily have to be an election after the defeat of the government. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily the case that the plurality party must govern. It is whichever group of MPs that is most likely form a stable government that who should to govern. The cases of a coalition goverment that excludes the plurality party have been very rare in Canada, (one short-lived instance I believe), but it is quite common in other pariliamentary democracies; it is perfectly legal and democratic.

And it seems your missing the point with the Harper government. The "blend" you're talking about hasn't happened with the Harper Conservatives. Instead, Harper has offered a no-compromise, take-it-or-leave it approach to governing both in the last Parliament and now this one.

All Harper had to do was compromise a little and no doubt he could have got support from at least one of the opposition parties. But he choose not to do this. Now finally the other parties have unaniously agreed that they won't be bullied any longer. In fact, it's with a coalition, rather than a minority, government that you are more likely to get the "blend" you think is so desirable.

'Scuse me, but your idea of attributing the votes of third and lower ranking parties to the top two is outrageous and undemocratic. For my part, I would prefer a partial or total proportional representation system.

If you are a Conservative supporter I respect your partisanship. But please: no more B/S that a coalition is improper or undemocratic because neither is valid in fact.

Feanor and, possibly, Kex will disagree with me I'm sure, but I think that this is the best short-term solution. I think that everyone was acting on emotion and not with their heads. Now, every party has time to figure out a longer-term plan. The Conservatives can rethink their position and make adjustments to the budget if they need to and the coalition has time to sit-down and put together a real game plan rather than whatever ad hoc plan they had to throw together with only a weeks notice.

If there is a non-confidence vote in January, all the Parties and the Canadian public will be ready. My greatest fear in the past week was that everyone was running on adreneline to act fast and not really thinking things through.

If the Coalition can survive and stay stong until January then at least we will know that they weren't just flying by the seat of their pants.

And Kex, as a Canadian born and bred, I am not embarrassed about any of this. I cast my vote for the party that I thought was best able to lead this country. My feelings have not changed. While all the leaders involved look like asses, this should reflect on them and the parties who voted them as their leaders. As a voting Canadian I can only work with what I'm presented with. If I'm only given ass holes, then that's what I have to choose. Despite all of this, I still believe that I live in one of the greatest countries on the planet and I stand proud.

Mostly I agree

1) You have a leader who preaches cooperation, only to spit in the face of his colleagues in Parliament and plunge the nation into political crisis.

Right on.

2) You have a system where an unelected symbolic official is forced to make a decision that will only be seen as partisan no matter which way she goes...this potential for interference should have been removed by now.

True enough, although this is the most power this official ever has. See below ...

3) Batting cleanup, you have 2 marginalized political parties fighting for their very survival, putting self-interest ahead of national interest. I can partially forgive them for this because the circumstances were belligerently forced upon them.

Coming from State-side with its extremely two-party system, you can be forgiven for characterizing smaller parties as "marginal". The NPD, specifically, has been around for many decades; it has formed many provincial governments. I dare say it will be around for a long time to come. It's unfair to say that it's putting self-interest ahead of the national: sufficient to say it's serving both.

After a lot of thought, I think Jean got it right here. If this coalition is legitimate, and formed for the right reasons, they'll bring down the government in January anyway and prove this wasn't a spur of the moment power grab. That the coalition was formed for the right, democratic reasons.

If they don't do that, it was because of petty partisan politics, and they'll lose a lot of credibility with voters.

I agree. Although I personally would have happy to see the coalition given the chance to govern, Jean acted with consistutional correctness by permitting prorogation under present circumstances -- i.e. there was no very compelling legal or practical reason not to honor the PM's request.

As for what happens next, one commentator on the radio locally had some good points in his predictions that I'll try to paraphrase below.

The BQ will pull it's support leaving the Liberal/NDP coalition stunned, confused, powerless and politically feeble adversaries in Quebec, while appearing to be the one, true anti-conservative hero to Quebec voters. And the Liberal/NDP parties will see their support across Canada weakened, and likely spilling over to the Conservatives.

From the BQ's perspective, the best conditions for a referendum on sovereignty have always been a West-centric, socially-conservative majority government in Canada. That's what polarizes Quebec nationalists.

Like it or lump it, the Bloc is a legitimate political movement and has as much right as any to factor in federal process. In practical terms they have not been a terribly radical or obstuctive force in the federal Parliament. The effect of the coalition might well be to demostrate to Quebecers that federal governance doesn't have to be West-centric or social-conservative.}

I think you're right

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

Feanor and, possibly, Kex will disagree with me I'm sure, but I think that this is the best short-term solution. I think that everyone was acting on emotion and not with their heads. Now, every party has time to figure out a longer-term plan. The Conservatives can rethink their position and make adjustments to the budget if they need to and the coalition has time to sit-down and put together a real game plan rather than whatever ad hoc plan they had to throw together with only a weeks notice.

If there is a non-confidence vote in January, all the Parties and the Canadian public will be ready. My greatest fear in the past week was that everyone was running on adreneline to act fast and not really thinking things through.

If the Coalition can survive and stay stong until January then at least we will know that they weren't just flying by the seat of their pants.

And Kex, as a Canadian born and bred, I am not embarrassed about any of this. I cast my vote for the party that I thought was best able to lead this country. My feelings have not changed. While all the leaders involved look like asses, this should reflect on them and the parties who voted them as their leaders. As a voting Canadian I can only work with what I'm presented with. If I'm only given ass holes, then that's what I have to choose. Despite all of this, I still believe that I live in one of the greatest countries on the planet and I stand proud.

FA,

It definitely is possible that Harper will have second thoughts about his budgetary postion and will offer sufficient compromise to attract at least one of the other parties to vote with the Conservatives. That's all it would have taken in the first place. I wouldn't count of this happening but it might.

As a b&b Canadian myself, I don't feel the slightest embarrassment about the Canadian system or parlimentary systems in general. Yes, the polititions here are jackasses just as they are elsewhere -- like say, the U.S.A.

Ouch.

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

And Kex, as a Canadian born and bred, I am not embarrassed about any of this. I cast my vote for the party that I thought was best able to lead this country. My feelings have not changed. While all the leaders involved look like asses, this should reflect on them and the parties who voted them as their leaders. As a voting Canadian I can only work with what I'm presented with. If I'm only given ass holes, then that's what I have to choose. Despite all of this, I still believe that I live in one of the greatest countries on the planet and I stand proud.

Well, I was bred at least.

I did vote and do pay taxes and do have family roots here, and I hold my politicians to a high standard. When their own self interests hurt the country, I am embarassed to say they are our "leaders". I wasn't implying the country itself sucks or anything. But I would be shocked if anyone not related could truly say they are "proud" of these guys...

This whole mess had nothing to do with governing or addressing a financial or constitutional crisis, this was a case where partisan politics and pure hatred for the other guys has directly influenced the better judgement. And from my vantage point the only innocent party in this is the BQ who at least are doing what they've promised to do.

As I mentioned before, I think Jean did the right thing, so I guess I agree with FA on that. In the meantime another 6 or 7 weeks is wasted...

Mostly I'm never "proud" of politicians, I guess, but I do recall one example of former Prime Minister Paul Martin when he stated the notwithstanding clause should only ever be used to give legal rights and never to take legal rights away. Every now and then they get something right.

Politicians seem to have a hard time accepting that they are the government of all citizens, not just the ones who voted for them. Once in awhile they get it though...

It looks like the Coalition deal has hurt the Liberals (or it could have just been Dion's amateur video).

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Harper has mounted a crushing polling lead as the result of a political crisis in which an opposition coalition sought to take power, three polls released over the past two days showed.

The surveys showed Harper's Conservatives would take well over the 40 percent needed to convert his minority in Parliament into a majority, and a lead of 20 percentage points over the main opposition Liberal Party.

The main opposition Liberals, the leftist New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois, which wants to take Quebec out of Canada, signed a deal on Monday to try to replace Harper with a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc.

They were upset with Harper's attempt, since withdrawn, to cut off direct subsidies of political parties and they also said he was not doing enough to boost the economy. During the election campaign, they had ruled out forming coalitions.

Harper mounted an attack on what he called a coalition driven by separatists and socialists, and public opinion swung his way at least for now, though pollsters say spikes in support can fade as crises fade.

A Strategic Counsel poll in Friday's Globe and Mail newspaper put the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals 45 to 24 percent, with the New Democrats trailing at 14 percent.

This compares with the October 14 electoral result of 37.6 percent for the Conservatives, 26.2 percent for the Liberals and 18.2 percent for the New Democrats.

An Ipsos Reid survey released on Friday in Canwest newspapers put the Conservatives at 46 percent, the Liberals at 23 percent and the New Democrats at 13 percent.

An Ekos poll released the night before showed a 20-point lead for the Conservatives.

Fifty-six percent of those polled by Ipsos Reid said they would rather go to another election, even though one was just held, rather than let the coalition govern.

Harper won seven weeks of breathing space on Thursday with the suspension of Parliament until late January, when he can present a budget with economic stimulus.

The coalition could try to bring him down then, though some Liberals are saying they should think hard before doing that.

So I hear

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

It looks like the Coalition deal has hurt the Liberals (or it could have just been Dion's amateur video).

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Harper has mounted a crushing polling lead as the result of a political crisis in which an opposition coalition sought to take power, three polls released over the past two days showed.

...

Yes, I see that Angus Reid has polled a significant lead for the Conservatives. For me it is a tad disapointing though not surprising.

In the first place, pretty much everyone who voted Conservative in October would do so now, I guess. The enormity of Harper's non-reponse to the economic crisis hasn't sunk in with them.

Others potential votes reasonably ask, "Why can't they all get alone?". They aren't realizing that it was Harper's uncompromising attitude that provoked the oppositions parties' response much more than their self-serving instincts.

Other than that, most voters don't just understand what a coalition is about since they have been virtually not existent in federal politics. People fear and resent what they don't understand.

On the issue of fearing the not understood, recall there was the referendum on proportional representation in the next to last election. It was rejected by a fair majority though, as I recall, only 30% seats would have been elected by that method. Again, the ignorance of the typical Canadian voter was the mostly cause of the result. True, relatively informed opponents of the concept arguee that it would cause "instability". This instability come about because it would be less likely that a single parting could get an absolute majoriy of seats-- a result that would make coalition governments a frequent necessity. (Well, do you believe that a party the gets, say, 45% of the popular vote should get 60% of the seats in Parliament and do whatever they like total disregard for the rest of MPs? I don't.)

I was making reference to Dion's pre-recorded address to the Nation on Wednesday evening which followed Harper's Address.

Although pre-recorded, Dion's video was a half hour late being delivered to the networks and was of very poor quality. It was out of focus and looked like it had been recorded with a low quality Radio Shack web cam and then transferred onto a VHS tape that had been erased and recorded over many times.

The most unfortunate thing about the whole episode is that it made Dion look like a hack and took the focus away from his message.